Lackey, Robert T. 1997. If ecological assessment is the answer, what
is the question? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 3(6): 921-928.

Ecological risk assessment has become a commonly used tool in policy
analysis, but its use is controversial. Opinions are diverse; they range from enthusiastic
support to caustic dismissal. Much of the controversy with using risk assessment in
ecological policy analysis revolves around defining the initial policy question or problem
to be assessed. In formulating the key "questions" in ecological risk
assessment, the nature of the analytical technique forces analysts to make assumptions of
values and priorities; these assumptions may not be the same as those of the public or
their elected or appointed representatives. Specifically, much of the difficulty with
applying risk assessment is that, by definition, risk is adverse. Deciding
which ecological changes are adverse (undesired) and which are beneficial (desired) is
likely to be the primary political debate. Ecological conditions and changes are
classified by the values and priorities of the person or administrative body doing the
classification; ecological condition or change in itself is neither good nor bad,
beneficial nor adverse, healthy nor degraded. One method often used to determine which
ecological conditions or changes are adverse is to apply the human "health"
metaphor to ecosystems or ecological components. However, application of the concept of
ecosystem health is fraught with value-based requirements which are difficult and probably
impossible to attain. Formulating the question is, or at least should be, driven by
societal values, preferences, and priorities, but this is difficult to do in a pluralistic
society. Better ways to evaluate and measure public values, preferences, and priorities in
framing ecological questions are needed to enhance the utility of ecological risk
assessments.